Saturday, June 28, 2008

The Theory of Evolution has long been disproved. As if another nail were needed for the coffin into which Charles Darwin and his Theory are decomposing, here is one more proof.

According to Evolutionists, random mutations in a gene pool, aided by natural selection, prove beneficial and propel the gradual improvement of species. As well, new species form from this process. Species’ problems are solved using this technique. So, if a camel is having trouble reaching the top branches of a tree, well then natural selection favors the camel who has a mutation that codes for a longer neck, and wholla, a giraffe is evolved!

And since there are many copies of a camel and a nearly infinite evolutionary time, then all manner of problems is solved with mutations and natural selection. So, you are a species having problem swimming? Well then you can evolve from a cow to a whale! Suddenly a cow is able to swim in oceans, flipping its newly evolved fins and holding its breath as it dives deep in ocean waters!

But, if Evolution and natural selection are so good at solving very complex problems like allowing for a cow to evolve into a whale, then how come Evolution has not been able to cure the age old Cancer problem? Diverse species from humans to mice, to sharks, to plants, all develop cancer. And as we know, cancer is not good for survival of an organism. So how come, if evolution is so good at solving problems – given that it has had billions of years to work on this problem – it has not been able to find a solution for cancer?

The cancer problem is yet another proof of the absurdity that is evolution. To A god fearing person it is obvious that cancers are consequences of sins committed by individuals. It is God’s way of evening a score. George Collins, by now, can teach you a thing or two about the consequences of heresy and God's punishment!

31 comments:

First off, well done JP I mean Brab. Secondly, a truly educated Orthodox Jew does not need to see evolution as conflicting with the Bible for reasons beyond the scope of this post. But dealing with your specific topic, evolution does not magically turn cows into whales or camels into giraffes. It does not automatically mean that a species problem will be fixable. Many variables go into this equation for example:Life threatening problem occursA mutation must exist to combat itThis mutation must occur before species goes extinctAnd the cost of such a mutation can not be too high

There are environmental/genetic factors to take into account and just plain old luck. PLUS, Cancer is a horrible example. It is an umbrella term, a description of cell growth. This argument would have to really analyze a specific cancer and even that in and of itself is still complex. Cancer isn’t all the same, it’s a diverse and evolving population of cells. This will explain it much better.http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/071001_cancer

Here is an important excerpt, “A single tumor, for example, is made up of a variety of cell types, produced as the cells proliferated and incurred different mutations. All of this diversity means that the population of cells could easily include a mutant variety that happens to be resistant to any individual chemotherapy drug we might administer. To make matters even more difficult, treating the patient with that drug creates an environment in which the few resistant cancer cells have a strong selective advantage in comparison to other cells. Over time, those resistant cells will increase in frequency and continue to evolve. It's not surprising then that a simple cure for cancer has yet to be developed: treating

May I offer a better example?AIDSIt’s relatively simple, only has two main strands and we are desperately at its mercy.Would you concede that for the sake of this argument we switch cancer with AIDS? It's a much more clear and concise villian for your proposed discussion.

I agree that cancer is a complex disease. I also agree that there are many types of cancer. But by 'cancer', let us agree that we mean a group of diseases characterized by relentless and unchecked growth of a group of cells, resulting ultimately in overwhelming the organism and leading to its demise.

If this is so, you must agree that there aught to be a very strong pressure for organims to evolve mechanisms to combat cancer. If you have a population that is predisposed to cancer, and another population that is resistant, then clearly the latter population has an enormous evolutionary advantage.

Natural selection, therefore, should heavily favor a solution for evolution.

Now, you make the point that "cancer is complicated"! OK, so it is complicated. But is cancer as complex as evolving a human from a rat? Is it as complex as the steps required to go from an ape species to Homo sapien?

Yet, cancer has been around for many millions of years. Just about every multi-cellular organism develops cancer.

So what gives? Why can we go from bacteria to whales, yet can not solve the cancer problem?

The answer is simple. God has placed cancer in us as punishment for our sins.

Hi,its your old friend, Nat, from JP. I recenly finished reading "The Irrational Atheist" by one Vox Day. The book provides a list of 52 Atheistic mass murderers from the twentieth century alone. Each was was responsible for at least 20,000 murders. Every case is documented in the history books. I already knew that the biggest mass murderers, Stalin and Mao, were atheists, but I had no idea there were that many. You guys are scary.

We have been down this road before. You say that atheists are mass murderers. We, as atheists say that actually the list of murderers is longer on the theist side. It gets boring, especially in light of it not being relevant to the topic at hand.

Suppose I told you that members of the Flat Earth Society commit less crimes. Does that mean the Earth is therefore flat?

Now, you come along and you say that you have read in a book that there are 52 atheistic murderers. OK. Does that now mean that god does exist?

Can you provide a list of 52 atheistic mass murderers, each one guilty of that many murders? I can't. I can think of soem but not that many. The atheist books prettymuch stick to the Crusades and the Inquisition. Neither of these resulted in as many deaths as what the atheists did. And if the biggest mass murderers are athiest, then that makes atheists, on average worse, than theists. Also a disproportionate number of atheists are mass murderers, and vise versa. This means that atheism tends to lead to mass murders.

I'm bringing it up because you guys started it. You have Dawkins's "The God Delusion" Harris's "Letters to a Christian Nation" and Hitchins's "God is not Great" all attacking theism on moral grounds, and asserting that therefore it can't be true. I'm merely using your arguement.

Nat:Can you provide a list of 52 atheistic mass murderers, each one guilty of that many murders? I can't.

Ok! Are you making a point to my favor? Did you mean religious mass murderers Nat?

Nat: A disproportionate number of atheists are mass murderers.

Nat, first, I would like to see your source for saying something like that. Leave it to you to come up with something as ridiculous as that.

Second, you are engaged in assassinating an idea by a fabricated association. You make shit up, and then you blame it on atheism in order to discredit it. In the end, Nat, this sort of argumentation serves only to discredit you.

Nat: I'm brining it up because you guys started it.

Nat, your reading comprehension is lacking. I read the same books that you mentioned. They do not "attack theism on moral grounds and assert that they therefore can't be true." Instead, they state that God does not exist and religion does not provide a source or origin of morality. In other words, they argue, as I do, that the source of morality can not be religion. So, in logical terms, the atheists assert the following:

1. God does not exist.2. Religion does not serve as a source for morality.

These are the assertions made in the books you mentioned. In the God Delusion, for example, Dawkins devotes a chapter to each of these assertions. Dawkins does not derive one assertion from the other, however, as you seem to think.

Nat, first, I would like to see your source for saying something like that. Leave it to you to come up with something as ridiculous as that."

Hey, just about every time atheists run a counytry they resort to mass murder. Just study history. Ther have been hundreds,if not thousands of theistic rulkers ,and must of them didn't kill anybody. Just do the math.

and in the books mentioned Dawkins and friends do attack all religious people on moral grounds. Dawkins said that religious people are worse than child molesters. Harris said that all religious people are responsible for the bad doen by fantics. So if religoopus people can be bad, atheists are worse.

Adn how could religion not be a source of morality when many people are motivated by religion to be moral?

dcoem to think of it what happens iof we apply Harris's logic to atheists. If religious moderates are guilty of enabling religious fanatics, then atheist moderates should also be hled accountable for mass murders commited by the likes of Stalin and Mao. And since they were far worse than any theists were then it follows that even moderate atheists are worse then moderate theists.

Stalin and Hitler, your favorite atheists, also had mustaches. Why not blame their facial hair for their mass murder?

If Hitler (was he an atheist?) or Mao or Stalin killed people in advancing their atheism, then Nat you would have a point. If atheist leaders killed people because of their religions, then again you would have a (weak) point. But they did not. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao killed people, and also happened to be atheists in just the same way as they happened to have mustaches.

On the other hand, there are many times in history (your mention of The Crusades is one such example) when leaders did kill people and fought wars IN THE NAME OF RELIGION. There is the difference.

I would argue, however, that even if religious wars have been fought and much blood was shed, in and of itself, this does not invalidate the notion that there is or is not a god. You can not say that because Osama Bin Laden is religious and because he has killed people then God does not exist! What kind of argumentation is that? Similarly, you can not say that because you know of 54 mass murderers and they happen to be atheists, then God does exist! That is absurd argumentation.

1. Hitler made it abudantly clear in chapter 11 of "Mein Kampf" that his core belief system was Darwinism.

2. The oppression of religion was the official policy of the Soviet Union and Communist China. So many of those millions of people Stalin and Mao killed were killed for practising religion. So spreading atheism was a motivating factor.

3. There is such a strong statistical correlation between atheism and mass murder that there just has to be a correlation.

- Foreign Policy: Obama correctly voted no to go to war in Iraq, sees Iraq as a drain on US blood and treasury, and has correctly identified Afghanistan as the correct means place for US effort (to prevent another failed state). McCain sang 'bomb, bomb, bomb Iran' to the Neocon faithful. Obama gets an A+, McCain gets an 'F'

- Foreign Diplomacy: Obama believes in the utility of talking with ones enemies, McCain does not. To be fair to McCain his base won't let him soften his position to anything like reality, but it isn't clear from his statements that he even recognizes what reality is. Obama in contrast had to tack against the wind of public opinion by articulating a position of pro-dimplomacy with enemy regimes. That said, his position could have been better argued. Obama A, McCain D+

- The US Economy: Obama's tax cuts for the middle class (which should stimulate spending and hopefully ameliorate what is likely a dreadful recession) is manifestly more intelligent than McCain's desire to permanently install the Bush tax cuts for the top 1%. Further, while Obama isn't exactly John Kenneth Galbraith when it comes to economics, McCain is a professed ignoramus. Obama B, McCain D.

- Supreme Court Justices: Obama wants to promote someone in the mold of David Souter. He could have picked one of the more liberal justices (Ginsburg) as his template and I would have been OK, but Souter is a conservative (in the old sense of the word) appointed by Bush Sr., who is nevertheless not an ideologue and more importantly a staunch defender of the constitution. McCain is in the pocket of Dobson et al. for his pick, so you can expect another whack job fire-breathing type ala Scalia. Obama A+, McCain F.

As for you criticism of Obama as a populist, I too share your suspicion of anyone who carries so much charisma that they evoke powerful emotional responses. I didn't like Reagan for precisely this effect (and it turns out for good reason).

But whenever I review the things that matter to me in a US President, I realize that Obama has them in spades.

Once upon a time I liked McCain, but with his pick of Sarah Palin to be his VP I think he demonstrated two significant things;

1. He does not actually have the best interests of the American people at heart. If he did he wouldn't have placed such an ill-informed empty suit so close to the Presidency, and...

2. He does not possess the temperament or judgement necessary to be President. The single most important decision he can make as a candidate is his running mate, and by allowing his advisors to bully him into taking someone he didn't even know over a roster of excellent candidates (Lieberman, Hutchinson, Ridge, etc.) that he did know, shows that he isn't commander in chief material.

As always you make lots of very interesting and well considered arguments. Its always a pleasure engaging with you!

1. You objected to my suggesting Obama was against the war and pointed out (correctly) that he wasn't in the Senate at the time of the vote on it. However, he was indeed on the record as a vocal opponent of the war when it was conceived;

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2006/11/obama_flexes_an.html

So I think we can fairly give him credit for this. Further, given the cost of the war, I give him major props for getting this right.

2. You suggest that McCain and Obama have similar plans for exiting Iraq. Obama is on record as preferring a phased withdrawal of troops coupled with training Iraqis to fill the security void.

McCain in contrast is an 'empire builder' in keeping with his handlers/advisors like Bill Kristol; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16484446/

So as I said, I give the massive edge in recognizing reality to Obama.

3. On the issue of diplomacy in foreign policy you suggested;

"This issue of talking with Iran with or without pre-conditions is a red herring. Who cares whether there are conditions for a talk or not."

Well, actually, I care! Consider the situation in North Korea. Diplomatic isolationism by the US prompted them to pursue a nuclear program MORE vigorously rather than less. It was only in the last two years that the Bush regime realized their isolation tactics were counter productive, so they started diplomatic talks out of the public eye with a goal of lessening tensions. Suprise surprise, North Korea is now off the Axis of Evil. Rather than a red herring, I see the utility of diplomacy as key. Why take that arrow (peace is war by other means - Clausewitz) out of your quiver if you don't have to?

4. I regret that I cannot more ably debate the economic platforms of either candidate, but I note that your own analysis appears to be in error if I read the Tax Policy Center analysis correctly.

Here is the link to their analysis;

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411749

Are they inappropriately biased for Obama? If they are they hide it well.

Further, and for a more visual representation of what the tax cuts represent for each candidate visit this site (and I note that this site is definitely biased - though the chart itself isn't) and scroll down to review the chart they use that graphically represents the differece between who is getting taxed at what level; http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/

The argument I make here is not that Obama won't raise taxes (of course he will, there is a massive deficit), or that McCain won't (of course he will, there is a massive deficit), but that Obama's targeting of these tax hikes is more appropriate than McCain's plan.

Frankly, neither is being completely honest in describing the scope of your economic problems, but last I checked Chicken Little lost in the primaries.

Per your criticisms regarding the specificity of Bush tax cuts, as I read the analysis Obama intends to let parts of the Bush tax cuts expire while keeping others that fit his proposal. If I have read this analysis incorrectly, I look forward to your correcting me.

5. Regarding Souter being a 'stealth' candidate, I think you are in slight error. A stealth candidate would be someone like Roberts who had no record really to review, but who was regarded as being the right kind of justice because of his personal connections to the Bush family (as I previously mentioned he was part of the legal team they used to overturn the vote in Florida). Souter in contrast had a relatively long judicial record from which to predict his performance. Keep in mind that Souter had to pass muster with a congress that could have filibustered him (as it once did with Bork - thank goodness) if he was too extreme. Is he a liberal? No - not unless you use liberal in the old school sense of Adam Smith free market libertarian types. He has sided with the 'left' on culture issues (like the death penalty), and he has an active intellect that has sought out legal opinions from other nations to act as a comparative for how US decisions work - and for this he is villified by the far right.

Here's the thing, if Obama were the raging socialist liberal Rush Limbaugh paints him as, then the professed type of Supreme Court nominee would be a similarly raging liberal type. Except he singled out Souter(!) - who simply isn't a raging liberal anything, and instead defines the essence of a thoughtful, moderate, conservative.

As for Scalia being a 'conservative' he is anything but. His original intent reading of the constitution is tortured nonsense. He is as one scholar described him a 'vulgar majoritarian' - which I think hits at his essence. For example, despite the long history of Church State Separation Scalia routinely pretends that it doesn't exist and routinely endorses the application of religious tests, etc. despite the plain language that prohibits them.

Here's the distinction I make, a conservative respects legal tradition, precedent, etc, and it is in this sense that I want a conservative SC Justice.

Scalia in contrast, is a conservative but only in the narrow sense of the RESULT of his decision. He is willing to abuse the constitution so long as at the end of his reasoning (no matter how tortured and filled with pretzel logic it may be) the result fits with his right wing views.

Consider that Scalia routinely ignores the barrier between Church State separation despite it being one of the lynchpins of US legal jurisprudence. Hardly a conservative approach. Or consider his vote on the Kelo decision where he endorsed the power of the US/state governments to take property from private citizens for the use of other private citizens. Again, hardly a conservative approach to the constitution, but one that is completely in keeping with his right wing results oriented view of the law.

Frankly I would rather have a dozen Roberts on the court than another Scalia. At least Roberts respects the law, whereas Scalia is the very thing the right wing often scream most loudly about - an 'activist' judge - he just happens to be an activist for their pet causes.

6. You said: "But I am not ready to allow a man to run our country about whom I know next to nothing. Yes he talks a good game but I do not know who he is or what he has done. He is an unknown."

Fair enough, but while he may be unknown, the man I've watched take down the Hilary Clinton machine is extremely impressive. He is wicked smart, and clearly capable. Neither of those qualities appear in McCain who I now see as a reckless and even mean spirited.

Then you said, "I am suspicious of the sources of the enormous monies he has raised and it makes me uncomfortable."

I have no such misgivings. His enormous money machine is clearly the result of his immense popularity rather than say lobbyists looking to buy a candidate (compare Oil Company donations to each candidate, or K-Street donations, McCain is way ahead on both. Whereas Obama is beholden to every average guy/gal who submitted a $25 donation, McCain would be taking calls from Exxon - in which case, who would you prefer?)

Here are some other reasons for preferring Obama I didn't originally list;

- The US image abroad is in the dumper. They (and we Canadians are included) would vastly prefer you pick Obama, someone who doesn't sneer at the French and can say 'Iraq', 'nuclear' and 'Pakistan' correctly would be nice for a change.

- An Obama win would mark a major movement away from identity politics - you know, the kind of political thinking that suggests you pick your running mate because they are; overtly religious, a woman, from a small state, etc. Obama didn't pick Biden because he was a white male who would play well in Ohio, he picked him because he is a foreign policy expert who covered a perceived weakness. An Obama win represents substance over style.

It is funny how I comment my response on your blog and you on mine. It would be a bit more coherent if we reply in one place in case any one else is reading this.

It is good to debate with you as well as I always learn from you.

Just to respond to your writings:

1. Regarding Obama criticizing the war and getting credit for it, I would say that he deserves some credit for it. But Senators vote for or against something for various reasons, only one of which is their conscience. With any vote, there is much politicing involved, something a private citizen is not exposed to. Thus, we can not give Obama credit for voting a certain way when in fact he did not.

2. Regarding the planned waging of the Iraqi war, I looked at your links but was not able to understand what you were implying. McCain was for the troop surge. So?

3. Regarding negotiating with foreign countries, I am afraid you may have misunderstood me. My position is that nations with differences aught to communicate if they believe that there is a reasonable chance of of a favorable outcome, with or without preconditions (or any conditions). This has been the way reasonable countries have dealt with one another. All of a sudden the notion of 'preconditions' has been raised. I was merely pointing out that this last condition is a red herring.

1 - I don't have a problem denying credit to Obama for voting against the war (you correctly point out he didn't), but I think its fair to point out that he was on the record as opposed to it.

2 - The point was the difference in position between the candidates with regards to how to handle Iraq moving forward. Obama is for pulling out expediently to concentrate the US presence in Afghanistan. McCain, in contrast, is for a prolonged (read: indefinite) military presence in Iraq by US forces. Reality may intervene (on either plan) but there is a clear difference in stated goals between them.

3. I'm still not sure the point you are trying to make here, or how it helps McCain, but it does not seem like we are far apart. A difference without a difference and all that.

Best of luck voting tomorrow! I'm confident you'll pick the candidate who is most in tune with reality, even if it means holding your nose as you pull the lever. ;-)

Regarding this last (#3) point, I was not trying to help McCain. In fact, I was pointing out that debating on whether there should be 'preconditions' prior to meeting with other world leaders is silly. I am sure that leaders of nations talk about all sorts of things, such as dinner menus, positions on a table, topics of discussions etc. I suppose these are called 'preconditions'. These things will be discussed prior to any summit. I am not sure why this suddenly took center stage amongst the many issues for this election. Nations should talk if talking is useful. Period. I think that both Obama and McCain engaged in hyperbole in this, the most unimportant topic.

I am planning to vote in my state of New York. This town is so blue that bulls never get excited here. Nevertheless, I suppose I will vote to give Obama a bit less of a mandate.

Your comments on evolution are a joke. Using your logic, why haven't humans developed immortality? Why aren't all animals sexually fertile until the day they die? The answer is that there are limits to the biological framework. It is very complicated and cells, by their nature, metastasize on some occasions over time and then you have cancer. Why hasn't that been evolved out? BECAUSE THEY NEARLY ALWAYS SPREAD THERE GENES BEFORE THAT POINT. Environmental factors also play a role. Also, there are MANY amazing Christians that have gotten cancer and died (better Christians than you).

1. Cancer occurs generally after reproductive age so that there is not the selective pressure to deal with cancer.

2. Cancer is ver complicated, so its cure by evolution is difficult.

If I have gotten the gist of your argument wrong, please feel free to correct me in subsequent comments.

Let me deal with your second assertion first. Do you think that cancer is more complex a concept than the steps required to go from a cow to a whale? Is it easier for forces of evolution to guide the formation of monkey from a rat than to check the proliferation of cell types?

Do you honestly think that it is easier to evolve complex mammalian species from single celled organism than deal with cells that autonimously reproduce?

Are my comments a joke? Really?

Let me now deal with your first assertion that cancer occurs after reproductive age. To some extent what you say is true. But recall that there are many cancers that occur primarily during reproductive age. For example, consider ovairan cancer. Consider cervical cancer. These can and do occur in the young reproductive ages of women. Consider retinoblastoma which occurs universally before reproductive periods. I can mention many other cancers, but I think I have made my point.

Regarding immortality, your question is fair. But I think it is in fact your responsibility as a proponant of Evolution to explain, not mine!

So I ask again, what gives? How come Evolution can bring forth the enromous complexity that we see amongst our species, and yet can not deal with the most basid diseases given that Evolution has had nearly an infinity to do so?

1. Cancer occurs generally after reproductive age so that there is not the selective pressure to deal with cancer.

2. Cancer is ver complicated, so its cure by evolution is difficult.

If I have gotten the gist of your argument wrong, please feel free to correct me in subsequent comments.

Let me deal with your second assertion first. Do you think that cancer is more complex a concept than the steps required to go from a cow to a whale? Is it easier for forces of evolution to guide the formation of monkey from a rat than to check the proliferation of cell types?

Do you honestly think that it is easier to evolve complex mammalian species from single celled organism than deal with cells that autonimously reproduce?

Are my comments a joke? Really?

Let me now deal with your first assertion that cancer occurs after reproductive age. To some extent what you say is true. But recall that there are many cancers that occur primarily during reproductive age. For example, consider ovairan cancer. Consider cervical cancer. These can and do occur in the young reproductive ages of women. Consider retinoblastoma which occurs universally before reproductive periods. I can mention many other cancers, but I think I have made my point.

Regarding immortality, your question is fair. But I think it is in fact your responsibility as a proponant of Evolution to explain, not mine!

So I ask again, what gives? How come Evolution can bring forth the enromous complexity that we see amongst our species, and yet can not deal with the most basid diseases given that Evolution has had nearly an infinity to do so?

Women with absolute and original freedom who celebrate life have always inspired me. Usually men and women expect to see classy hand bags via several areas. Repeat Celine handbag handbags and several individuals could be suitable for their style.It was made back in 1963 but it's shown on television quite a bit. http://www.a2.com.tw/design/userinfo.php?uid=54868

Consequently, they want to take pleasure from themselves with led packs.Our most pricy nike Air Force I footwear value roughly $300.You can resist change, but only temporarily. Co- branding starts at endorsements with highly successful people and institutions. https://elgg.tronicsis.com/profile/EricDejes